PRAVINBHAI MOHANBHAI VADI,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.102/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Vadi The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Flat No.1, Prabhudeep Apartment Income Tax, Jamanagar. Air Force-2 Road Vs. Jamnagar. Pan : Agzpv6946P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

3 (iii) These entities appeared to be bogus and were likely used to accommodate unaccounted money. Thus, purchases from these entities should have been disallowed and treated as unexplained expenditure under section 69C read with section 115BBE of the Act. (iv) The AO failed to conduct any verification or inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of these transactions, despite it being

SHREE N H ENTERPRISES,RAJKOT vs. PCIT-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 227/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree N. H. Enterprises बनाम/ Pcit-1, D-101, Golden Portico Apartment, Dr. Income Tax Office, Vs. Madhapar Circle, Morbi Road, Rajkot- Rajkot-360007 360007 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Adlfs7019K "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 : 20/11/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

section 263 of the Act, to revise the assessment order should be quashed. 4 Shree N. H. Enterprises vs. PCIT 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the assessing officer, disallowed 25% of bogus purchases, however, as per Ld. PCIT 100% purchases, which were bogus, should have been disallowed by the assessing officer, therefore

DHRUV PRINT PACK INDUSTRIES,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, however, the assessing officer failed to do the same, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous. Page 18 Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 06.02.2021, 21.09.2021, and 06.02.2021, vide paper book page

HETALKUMAR PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, however, the assessing officer failed to\ndo the same, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous.\nPage | 18\n19\nITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024\nITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024\nLearned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment\nproceedings, the assessing officer, issued notices under section 142

M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD.,MORBI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, however, the assessing officer failed to\ndo the same, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous.\nPage | 18\nLearned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment\nproceedings, the assessing officer, issued notices under section 142(1) of the\nAct, dated 06.02.2021, 21.09.2021, and 06.02.2021, vide paper book page\nNos

KISHOR VELJIBHAI FOFANDI,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961,however, the assessing officer failed to do the same, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous. ITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024 ITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024 Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act,dated

SHAMJI NATHU VAISHYA,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961,however, the assessing officer failed to do the same, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous. ITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024 ITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024 Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act,dated

CHUNILAL GOVIND VANIK,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961,however, the assessing officer failed to do the same, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous. ITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024 ITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024 Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act,dated

DEEPMALA MARINE EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961,however, the assessing officer failed to do the same, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous. ITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024 ITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024 Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act,dated

SOHAM PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961,however, the assessing officer failed to do the same, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous. ITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024 ITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024 Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act,dated

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

142 taxmann.com 247, held that where\nAssessing Officer noted that assessee had indulged in scrip of shell company\nand had claimed long term capital gain on sale of shares and made addition\nunder section 68 holding that entire transaction was bogus and in the nature of\npenny stock, however, since genuineness of investment in shares by assessee\nwas substantiated

BHARATKUMAR KALYANJIBHAI BHINDI,JUNAGADH vs. PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, however, the assessing officer failed to\ndo the same, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous.\nPage | 18\nLearned Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the assessment\nproceedings, the assessing officer, issued notices under section 142(1) of the\nAct, dated 06.02.2021, 21.09.2021, and 06.02.2021, vide paper book page\nNos

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Bogus Total Income @ Sales Purchases 8.0% 1 2013-14 5,01,82,334 - 5,01,82,334 40,14,587 2 2015-16 6,67,76,311 - 6,67,76,311 53,42,105 3

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Bogus Total Income @ Sales Purchases 8.0% 1 2013-14 5,01,82,334 - 5,01,82,334 40,14,587 2 2015-16 6,67,76,311 - 6,67,76,311 53,42,105 3

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Bogus Total Income @ Sales Purchases 8.0% 1 2013-14 5,01,82,334 - 5,01,82,334 40,14,587 2 2015-16 6,67,76,311 - 6,67,76,311 53,42,105 3

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Bogus Total Income @ Sales Purchases 8.0% 1 2013-14 5,01,82,334 - 5,01,82,334 40,14,587 2 2015-16 6,67,76,311 - 6,67,76,311 53,42,105 3

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Bogus Total Income @ Sales Purchases 8.0% 1 2013-14 5,01,82,334 - 5,01,82,334 40,14,587 2 2015-16 6,67,76,311 - 6,67,76,311 53,42,105 3

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Bogus Total Income @ Sales Purchases 8.0% 1 2013-14 5,01,82,334 - 5,01,82,334 40,14,587 2 2015-16 6,67,76,311 - 6,67,76,311 53,42,105 3